What does this have to do with Tesla you may ask.A LOT in my opinion.The Tesla/SpaceX/Solar City conglomerate rests on the foundation of Elon Musk's supposed genius.After all, if he can land a rocket on a barge then building a car or making a profit should be a walk in the park right?

Several things are quite remarkable about those videos.The rocket burns with a very lazy yellow flame which which gives maximum visibility and minimum thrust and efficiency.Secondly the rocket is allowed to get well off the vertical and probably past the point of no return for a tall rocket in unstable equilibrium.

What is even more amazing is that despite the town of McGregor being only a few miles away and visible on some of the footage there was no interest shown in these amazing flights by the local media.No bystanders with video cameras.No complaints to the newspapers about the noise and the risks posed by an experimental rocket loaded with explosive fuel hovering above their heads.

A perfectly ordinary straight up launch, (no hovering) and then the rocket was deliberately detonated and the debris fell to earth.Plenty of rocket enthusiasts (Anoraks) lined up outside the fence.Where were the Anoraks when the amazing hover flights took place?Not really interested?

M'kay.

I'll move on to the "loop the loop" flight next.Any rocket scientists in the house?

Time for a lesson in rocket scienceIn order to get into orbit you need to travel really fast. (25,000 MPH)You need to start off with a REALLY BIG rocket loaded with lots of fuel and liquid oxygen.The trick is to use a 2 stage rocket, once all the fuel in the first stage is used up then the much smaller second stage separates and zooms off real quick then spits out the satellites or whatever and Bob's your uncle.

NASA did actually have a reusable rocket called the Space Shuttle.It had two solid fuel boosters that dropped away once empty. It also had a ginormous external fuel/LOX tank that also dropped away once empty.

I'll keep this lesson short and let you have a think about it before I deliver the next part.Remember, rocket laws 101 HUGE rocket full of fuel to start. Rocket gets EMPTY of fuel really quick.

Nice shots of the launch and excellent telemetry from the first stage which is going at about 5000 Km/h at the time of separation.Cut to 2nd stage images and telemetry.First stage video and telemetry get camera shy. (bummer)

Oh well.What next? Look...up in the sky it's a BRIGHT LIGHT!!Can't actually see the rocket (bummer)

What's next? Double sonic BOOM!!From a rocket that is blunt at both ends?A supersonic aircraft passing overhead causes a double boom. But the rocket(?) is coming down vertically.

So the first stage is supposed to flip 180 Degrees, fire the engines to cancel the Eastward velocity and accelerate to supersonic speed in the reverse direction. That's going to need quite a lot of fuel but let's give Ewon the benefit of the doubt that he's kept enough juice in the tank.Now for another quick 180 Degree flip and the rocket is now hurtling towards Canaveral guided by its little grid fins as it re-enters the earths atmosphere.The rocket motors are now getting an extremely strong wind ( 2000 MPH?) up the clacker.Time to relight the motors to slow down the landing.(Not sure if that might be a problem. Sometimes when I try to light a joint riding my motor bike I set fire to my beard)

Ok, fire the rockets.Fire them some more.How's the fuel gauge looking?

Must have been designed by the same dude that did the Snap-Off wheels!

The shock absorber strut should ideally be vertical to absorb the load.The way it is angled means that the forces will cause the lower arms to snap off under tension and/or the top of the struts to punch through the shell of the rocket.

Here is the latest "landing" in DAYLIGHT no less!Shame that CNN and ABC couldn't be in attendance.Never mind. Elon Musk in conjunction wityh SpaceX studios bring you.... THE GREAT REBOUNDING ROCKET ILLUSION.

Impressive innit?Now, play it at 0.25 speed (choose from tools menu)Golly...looks a bit jerky.

GOLLY!y framPause when rocket appears then advance frame by frame.....Rocket enters picture at about 06:18 seconds.Then it goes UP then DOWN then UP ...Are you kidding me?This is WORSE than Thunderbirds!

Really interested to know how you get to spend so much time on all of this "critical analysis" without making any attempt to experimentally verify your (questionable) science. Why not take a trip to Kennedy Launch Complex when the next Falcon 9 shoots off - see if it actually happens, then go look at the returned booster to see if it's real. I think you may find your "craziness" turn to "logic".

How's THIS for logic?IF (big if) SpaceX can really have enough fuel remaining on board the first stage at the time of separation to reverse direction and fly back home at supersonic speed then it ought to have been able to deliver a much larger payload instead.I've never doubted that the Falcon shoots off.What I can find no evidence of is that it loops the loop and flies home.Still waiting for something better than a dodgy SpaceX video or an equally dodgy home video by an Eloonite.

You want "logic"?Try this on for size.The first stage is claimed to fly back at supersonic speed (hence the double bang).You may have noticed that the first stage is blunt at both ends.Even the most streamlined of objects will not reach a supersonic velocity under the influence of gravity alone and therefore the rocket motor must be used to propel the (blunt) rocket.Might I possibly enquire "why the rush"?Wouldn't it make slowing the rocket for landing even harder?At what point does the rocket flip 180 degrees?Are you sure it won't get all bent out of shape when it goes sideways on at supersonic speed?Won't it be a bit hard to relight the rocket when it has a supersonic wind up the clacker?

Spacex uses a cooler grade of LOX, which is more dense than the LOX used by other launch vehicles. This increased density is around 0.75% to 1% greater than the density of "standard" LOX, meaning that there's just that little bit more LOX than other rockets use. HOWEVER... it is more volatile, and has some "odd" physical properties (go look it all up - that's one of the advantages of the internet). It's partly the reason their rocket exploded on the launchpad last September (along with the configuration of the Helium pressure system). ULA (United Launch Alliance), ESA, the Chinese and the Russians will not use this supercooled LOX. Firstly, their engines and systems are not designed to handle the stuff, and they also consider it to be too "volatile", so never bothered to design systems to accommodate it. Also, where governments fund programmes, there's not a big incentive for economic resusability - they just use the taxpayers money and expend the entire vehicle.

The dynamics of power-to-weight and acceleration (via Newtonian Laws), as well as the Delta-v (go look that up too), plus this fractional "surplus" in LOX, allows Spacex to get the first stage to about 6000kmh, separate it, then come back down to earth. It's extremely fine tolerances and the timing of ignitions, thrust volumes and EC's (engine cutoff) are critical....

BUT... get it right, and it all comes together.

As I suggested, spend your next vacation in Florida and time it to coincide with a Spacex launch. If you see any "fake" stuff going on, I'd be pleased to hear about it.

Oh right...SpaceX uses "special" LOX which gives it a 1% advantage.Awesome.Now back to the blunt ended rocket flying at supersonic speed.... how is THAT possible.

Let's try a bit of logic again shall weIF the first stage has enough fuel remaining to reverse direction and fly back (supersonic) for a soft landing would it not be more economical to deliver a much higher payload rather than fooling around with the rebounding rocket charade?

I am perfectly au fait with Newton's laws of motion and Kinetic energy.Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is not something I use daily but I can summarise it as; Start with a shitload of fuel - finish with none!Ewon has found a way around that law.I'm not surprised.

FEBRUARY 19, 2017 10:16 A.M.Fairestcape wrote:Tesla is not only disrupting the world of conventional transportation, it is disrupting the manner in which a progressive business should be analysed. The real value of TSLA is not measured in quarterly statements and $$$ - this number (whatever it is at any point) is simply a barometer of the old-style thinking that most traditional analysts are trapped in. Firstly, Tesla is not about "selling cars", and while core business principles are extremely important (regardless of how disruptive or visionary), the real value of the company is what it is doing to influence the future. And this is about sustainable energy. The USA oil industry is taking a hiding right now (https://srsroccoreport.com/the-blood-bath-continues-in-the-u-s-major-oil-industry) and the medium to long term future of this stubbornly static industry does not look great.

You would do well to think more laterally on what values companies today.